In this Monday, July 17, 2017 photo, Meg Stern, left, and other escort volunteers lined up outside the EMW Women's Surgical Center in Louisville, Ky. A federal judge issued an order Friday, July 21, 2017, to keep protesters away from a "buffer zone" outside Kentucky's only abortion clinic, which is targeted by a national anti-abortion group. (AP Photo/Dylan Lovan)PHOTO:AP Photo/Dylan Lovan

ADVERTISEMENT

Fetal Heartbeat: New Abortion-related Fight in KY

By The Associated Press

FRANKFORT - Already mired in three lawsuits over abortion restrictions, Kentucky lawmakers are ratcheting up the stakes with a new bill to ban most abortions once a fetal heartbeat is detected.

As a new legislative session opens, the measure appeared to be on a fast track in the Republican-dominated state Senate. The American Civil Liberties Union, the state's adversary in the ongoing courthouse fights, warns the heartbeat bill would prohibit most abortions in Kentucky and would immediately trigger a legal challenge.

"It's blatantly unconstitutional," ACLU attorney Brigitte Amiri said Wednesday, a day after the measure was introduced by lawmakers. "This is certainly the most blatant attempt to take aim at Roe vs. Wade. It's extreme. It's yet again anti-abortion politicians trying to push abortion out of reach for women in this state."

Kentucky's bill is at odds with the legal standard set by the Supreme Court in its 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling, which prohibits states from banning abortions before viability. But the Kentucky proposal is among a series of measures introduced by abortion opponents who hope the Supreme Court will be more receptive to limiting abortion rights now that Justice Anthony Kennedy, a key vote to preserve abortion rights, has retired.

Kennedy was replaced by Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Though Kavanaugh's record on abortion is limited, he did vote as a federal appeals court judge in 2017 in favor of delaying an abortion for a pregnant immigrant teenager in federal custody.

In Iowa, a heartbeat law was temporarily blocked while a judge weighs whether it is unconstitutional. North Dakota's fetal heartbeat law was struck down as unconstitutional and the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review the lower court rulings.

The effort to prohibit abortions in Kentucky once a fetal heartbeat is detected — which is around six weeks of pregnancy — would further cement Kentucky's reputation as "one of the most hostile states" to abortion rights in the country, Amiri said by phone.

The ACLU attorney added that the "vast majority" of abortions occur after six weeks of pregnancy and called a six-week ban unconstitutional under more than 40 years of precedent.

"Most women don't even know they're pregnant at six weeks," she said. "So this is a virtual ban on abortion."

The heartbeat bill was introduced Tuesday, opening day of Kentucky's new session, and one of the many sponsors expected it to be heard in committee on Thursday. Senate Majority Floor Leader Damon Thayer said he hopes the bill would get a Senate vote this week. It would still have to pass the GOP-led House before it would go to the state's anti-abortion governor, Republican Matt Bevin.

After Friday, lawmakers head home for a break before reconvening in early February for the rest of the year's session.

If it reaches the governor's desk, the heartbeat bill would give Bevin an opportunity to attach his name to a measure imposing stricter limits on abortions — a popular stance with his socially conservative base. Bevin, who has said he'll seek re-election this year, saw his approval ratings drop after he criticized public workers who opposed his efforts to change the state's struggling public pension plans. Kentucky and two other states — Louisiana and Mississippi — will elect governors in 2019.

Embry said the state's legal setbacks in the other abortion cases would not deter Kentucky lawmakers from pushing ahead with an even more restrictive measure.

"We're still going right ahead with what we think is the right thing to do," he said.

Thayer said the threat of another ACLU lawsuit also wouldn't hold up the bill in the Senate: "It's our job to make laws, to make policy, and that's what we're going to do."

Republican lawmakers in Kentucky have aggressively pushed bills to restrict the procedure since consolidating their hold on the legislature starting in 2017, even though two abortion-related laws have been struck down in the courts. Bevin's administration has appealed in both cases.

One of those laws, enacted in early 2017, had required doctors to perform ultrasounds and show and describe the ultrasound images to pregnant women, who could avert their eyes.

Another legal challenge arose over Bevin's interpretation of another law — passed about two decades ago — that required a Kentucky abortion clinic to have written agreements with a hospital and ambulance service in case of medical emergencies. Bevin's administration actions had threatened the state's last abortion clinic, EMW Women's Surgical Center in Louisville.

In a third case, lawyers for Bevin's administration and the ACLU argued over a lawsuit challenging a state law aimed at a common second-trimester procedure to end pregnancies. The law remains suspended pending a ruling by a federal judge.

Gerald C. Perhaps I should rephrase the question/s. Should abortion at particular stage/s of fetal development be considered murder in cases where the fetal homicide laws are not applicable? And what in your view, would be appropriate punishment for those involved in such a crime? Here is an excerpt from an article in harpersbazaar.com; “The Overton window is shifting dramatically on whether it is acceptable to call abortion murder. The three-term Idaho State Senator Bob Nonini has suggested the death penalty for women who have abortions. Another Idaho state senator, Dan Foreman, shrieked, “abortion is murder” at a bunch of college students. Meanwhile a bill introduced in Ohio would charge women who receive abortions with murder.” Do you agree that women who “receive” abortions should be charged with murder and that the death penalty might be appropriate punishment?......The Overton window has indeed shifted on a wide range of issues-not only abortion- in the recent past. Especially as a result of Trumpism. But surely to goodness …….not that far!!!

Gerald C. Are you suggesting that women who have abortions be prosecuted for murder? Is it or should it be possible for a representative of a “child in utero “, to bring charges against a mother suspected of abusive behavior or a level of neglect that may have resulted in miscarriage?

You can justify it all you want. But once there is a heartbeat then there is a living human alive and well. Killing that child is murder in every sense of the word. No one has the right to murder anyone, even if that person is inside the womb. Murder is a crime and has nothing to do with religion. It is wrong and no one will ever convince me it is right. Abortion is just another term for murder especially when there is a heartbeat.

Another debate about abortion reminding me again of the decades ago upset over the two respected families and their friends devastated about a self-induced abortion attempt by a young woman in a time of different social standards. She tried aborting by herself instead of letting the local doctor do as he was known to do in a few other cases. This has been related through the years by locals, and they were actually more upset at the death of the girl than by the abortion attempt. The boyfriend grieved her till he died.

What get me is all of these people who see to think that if they finally make abortions illegal they will stop. Get real people, it will go back to the old ways of back alley coat hanger abortions for the poor and doctors for the rich, with newspaper articles of deaths for the poor.

The mother can't run away from an unplanned pregnancy like a father can. The real issue is that many of those that claim to be pro-life are vehemently against federal programs to help single mothers and their children. They also aren't exactly lining up to adopt either. In a way, mothers are shamed if they have the baby and shamed if they don't have the baby. If we are going to get rid of elective abortion with exceptions (medical emergency/life of mother,child, stillborn, etc.),we have to provide viable alternatives without shaming mothers and their unborn babies. Otherwise, we will be back to coathangers in alleys.

What is the fueling the objections? Is it morality or religious beliefs? If it is religious beliefs we need to be very careful. Please note there are supposedly now areas of the US occupied by Muslims with sharia law being ok. If this law if fueled by religion then in will give others a right to have laws based on their religion. I would have thought it couldn't happen here, but... I found out the other day that the middle east was once all Christian, what (or who) happened?

I still like my MR. Act. The Men's Rights Act will allow a man to not have to pay child support for something they didn't intent to have. Let's face it, intercourse is 99% gratification and only 1% for procreation, so if a man doesn't want her to have the baby, it is her choice, but she waives the right to child support or Government aid, if she keeps the baby.

1. Anyone that thinks Roe v. Wade gives an absolute right to abortion at any point in the pregnancy needs to read the decision. 2. Supreme Court precedent is subject to being overturned by future Supreme Courts, the prime example being Plessy v. Ferguson which held that the concept of separate but equal was constitutionally permissible being overruled 60 years later by Brown v. Board of Education.

Fortunately there isn't a law in the land that can contradict Roe v. Wade. The supreme court has spoken and they unanimously agree that no one has the right to stop a woman from having a legal abortion. There have been many attempts to have heart beat abortion laws past but not one has. Why is that? Keep trying to your hearts content but I'll tell you, It's been tried and tried again. There's no way. Bye Bye.

That’s right. If it’s not your body or your life, stay out of it. A baby is not your body. A baby is not your life. A person should not have the right to end another person’s life, regardless of the person’s age or point in development. Abortion is never the only option. I’m both pro-life and pro-choice. Babies have every right to life. And pregnant individuals have every right to choose- the choice, however, is not whether to let the life that is not yours continue to grow. The choice is to adapt or adopt.

I am still trying to understand how some people do not think a baby has a right to live? A lot of Democrats support killing a baby after its born, so they definitely don't care if it has a heartbeat or not. People who still think a baby is a clump of cells shows how ignorant they are and shouldn't be allowed to comment.

I agree with Estelle except that it should be the mother and father that makes the decision and if the woman refuses an abortion after the donor/father demands one, she forfeits any child support from the donor/father, that would eliminate women from trapping men for child support. We can call it the MR. law, Men's Rights. Sound good Estelle, it takes 2 to Tango?

Could you imagine if the Republican legislators put as much effort into protecting living breathing school children as they do a clump of tissue in a woman's uterus? Could you imagine if churches reached out and included more people instead of choosing to legislate morality? Yes, I think abortion is wrong. I also agree if you are trying to legislate outlawing abortions, you have already lost the moral argument. It's her body, and her choice. All we can do is pray for mother and child. You know, just like we do for fallen children of gun violence in our schools. Gen 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the BREATH OF LIFE; and man became a LIVING SOUL.

I fully support a womans choice to end a pregnancy. She should have the sole decision to have a child or not. she should not be punished for possible rape or being drugged or other things leading to becoming pregnant. If it's not your body and your life then stay out of it.

Here's the way this will play out: 1) the General Assembly will pass this obviously-unconstitutional bill; 2) the legislators will go to their respective churches and brag about passing the legislation, making as much political hay as possible from it; 3) the ACLU will challenge the statute and a federal judge will declare it unconstitutional; and 4) the Commonwealth of Kentucky will once again have to pay the legal fees of the ACLU.